Oaks is in favor of religious freedom

[SeattleUte]

There's nothing wrong with private people using speech to try to silence someone or get them to stop donating money or vote differently than they otherwise would have. That's perfectly legal. In fact, it's a constitutional right.

[JohnnyLingo]

There's nothing wrong with private people using speech to try to silence someone or get them to stop donating money or vote differently than they otherwise would have. That's perfectly legal. In fact, it's a constitutional right.

Well, unless it's a death threat. Those aren't cool. Harassment is also against the law.

[LA Ute]

How interesting that you all can't help yourselves comparing yourselves to blacks in Jim Crow South. This is why I want you to tell me exactly what kind of "violence" you have suffered. If you insist on appropriating the black experience in pursuit of civil rights I'm going to have to ask you to provide some facts about your suffering.

Seattle, Seattle . . . It's just argument by analogy. You must try - try! - to respond to the argument and not change the subject. Go back to my post and give it a shot. I still love you, just not the occasionally slippery tactics you use. !@#$!!?! lawyers.

[LA Ute]

There's nothing wrong with private people using speech to try to silence someone or get them to stop donating money or vote differently than they otherwise would have. That's perfectly legal. In fact, it's a constitutional right.

And it is a constitutional right to decry that tactic. Why are you trying to chill my constitutional rights, you commie?

[TripletDaddy]

I don't have an answer, which is why I bring it up. I think it is hypocritical for someone to think sanctions are bad if the wrong side is engaging them, which is why I asked the white supremacy question. I also think there is a difference between economic sanctions designed to suppress voter support and economic sanctions for other reasons. I am very much a free-market person, and I firmly believe we should be able to do business with whomever we choose, but I also think people should be free to support whatever side of an issue they want. Like I said, I don't have any answers.

you know, cowboy, I think in this we are both solidly in the same camp: neither one of us has the answer. I wish I did, as I am sure you do, too.

Let's make a deal...if one of us figures it out, we will tell the other. until then, we just keep trying to do what we think is best.

[SeattleUte]

Well, unless it's a death threat. Those aren't cool. Harassment is also against the law.

"Harassment is against the law." Yes, it can be, depending on what you're talking about. Political speech that makes you feel uncomfortable is not against the law. This is why the law strives to define illegal "harrasment" with particularity. I've even said it might be illegal to fire an employee for supporting Prop. 8. I'm against anything that's illegal including but not limited to violence. But I'll tell you from personal experience, going to court and stopping someone from saying something is the hardest thing to do in American jurisprudence. I say it to clients all the time.

[JohnnyLingo]

"Harassment is against the law." Yes, it can be, depending you what you're talking about. Political speech that makes you feel uncomfortable is not against the law. I've even said it might be illegal to fire an employee for supporting Prop. 8. I'm against anything that's illegal including but not limited to violence. But I'll tell you from personal experience, going to court and stopping someone from saying something is the hardest thing to do in American jurisprudence. I say it to clients all the time.

I'm just saying your pronouncement that "there's nothing wrong with private people using speech to try to silence someone" might have been a bit broad.

Also, no kidding it's impossible to stop someone from saying something. But there can be consequences attached to said actions.

[cowboy]

you know, cowboy, I think in this we are both solidly in the same camp: neither one of us has the answer. I wish I did, as I am sure you do, too.

Let's make a deal...if one of us figures it out, we will tell the other. until then, we just keep trying to do what we think is best.

Deal. But I'll have to tell you in a PM, because we've learned from sad experience that SU simply can't handle the truth.

[SeattleUte]

And it is a constitutional right to decry that tactic. Why are you trying to chill my constitutional rights, you commie?

Decry away. I'm just trying to get all you Prop. 8 supporters to not be such wusses. This is what war is like in the political arena. you all started shooting with repeaters. Gattling guns are not against the Geneva convention. I'm reminded of that toad in that Sunday morning cartoon, "Please Mr. Wizard I don't want to be a political ativist any more."

[TripletDaddy]

But there can be consequences attached to said actions.

lol. then what are you on about? there are consequences to donating to Prop 8, as well.

Bonus that you are reading this but can't respond!

[LA Ute]

Decry away. I'm just trying to get all you Prop. 8 supporters to not be such wusses. This is what war is like in the political arena. you all started shooting with repeaters. Gattling guns are not against the Geneva convention. I'm reminded of that toad in that Sunday morning cartoon, "Please Mr. Wizard I don't want to be a political ativist any more."

And to think I could have saved all that time if I had just checked with you first . . . . I must learn to sit at your feet more often.

Meanwhile, you still have not responded to this post and this post. We're watching you, Mister.

[DU Ute]

OK? Or not?

[SeattleUte]

OK? Or not?

Boycotts in some cases can be illegal, particularly if there are antitrust implications (a REALLY hard case to make). There may be some restrictions in federal labor relations laws. But generally if no one's lying about someone else it's perfectly legal and not necessarily immoral.

[SeattleUte]

lol. then what are you on about? there are consequences to donating to Prop 8, as well.

Bonus that you are reading this but can't respond!

LOL. Nice. Full circle.

[SoCalCoug]

But is marriage a right?

Don't we recognize the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Isn't marriage and family an integral part of the pursuit of happiness?